On 12/15/21 16:13, Stokes, Ian wrote: >> From: Rosemarie O'Riorden <[email protected]> >> >> If anonymous memory mapping is supported by the kernel, it's better >> to run OVS entirely in memory rather than creating shared data >> structures. OVS doesn't work in multi-process mode, so there is no need >> to litter a filesystem. >> >> Reported-at: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1949849 >> Signed-off-by: Rosemarie O'Riorden <[email protected]> > > Thanks for taking care of this Ilya, I validated the v1 a few weeks back, not > much has changed here so happy to ack. > > Should there be a note added to the docs about running OVS DPDK in > the legacy memory mode? Just thinking is this a noticeable (ideally not) > to then end user which they may want to avoid?
If someone already runs in a legacy mode, they will not notice the change. If someone doesn't use the legacy mode, there should not be the case where they might want to do that. The last reason I can think of is multiprocessing, but we can not guarantee the correct work of OVS in that mode. And, I guess, we're also moving in direction to just explicitly disable the multiprocessing to allow using high-numbered CPU cores: https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/openvswitch/patch/[email protected]/ In general, I'd vote to intentionally not document this case. What do you think? _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
